tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8809438035746342262.post1226919719943543691..comments2023-10-27T19:34:05.946-07:00Comments on NEW PAPYRUS: Obama's NASA DecisionMarcel F. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16245086958213100840noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8809438035746342262.post-21049107657818580632012-02-03T11:58:27.439-08:002012-02-03T11:58:27.439-08:00Fact: Obama is a disaster to NASA and the space pr...Fact: Obama is a disaster to NASA and the space program. I and others will continue to be laidoff from the space program under his grand plan of relying on other countries to do it for us.Just4thefaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16445548401677035144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8809438035746342262.post-19783301980865759562010-01-29T12:14:44.419-08:002010-01-29T12:14:44.419-08:00How's your outlook now, Marcel?
Shanksow, had...How's your outlook now, Marcel?<br /><br />Shanksow, had it right.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301658878108035295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8809438035746342262.post-9388240835457295042009-11-02T08:51:18.449-08:002009-11-02T08:51:18.449-08:00NASA has spent billions of dollars so far developi...NASA has spent billions of dollars so far developing Ares I and so far, they have one successful suborbital test flight to show for it. SpaceX has spent approximately $300 million developing their Falcon 9/Dragon capsule program and they are preparing for an orbital test flight of the entire Falcon 9/Dragon system.<br /><br />SpaceX may ultimately fail on their test flight attempt, however, the comparison I am trying to draw here is that SpaceX has developed a system to NASA specifications with far less dollars than NASA has spent developing their Ares I system.<br /><br />My conclusion is that the in-house method of developing space flight systems may be obsolete. When Apollo was developed, it had to be done in-house because no company alone had the expertise to do something like that. <br /><br />However, space flight technology has come a long way since the days of Apollo and we may benefit from method of defining the mission and then letting companies compete and bid on the best overall approach.<br /><br />We may find that a SpaceX type approach to letting the private sector come up with the solutions, hardware, etc, in response to defined mission parameters is a better approach than developing spaceflight hardware in-house.Gary Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629370337566644961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8809438035746342262.post-60943942349832630312009-08-27T10:51:10.361-07:002009-08-27T10:51:10.361-07:00Chemical rockets might see a 15% improvement. Nucl...Chemical rockets might see a 15% improvement. Nuclear rockets would be at least a 100% improvement. But I think it is time to use rotating tethers made of zylon or M5 to lower the cost to the moon. Prop depots seem likely already. An electrodynamic tether should be used on the ISS for reboost. Mars direct is daring and inspirational, and is money better spent than fighting two wars overseas. Space solar powersats are much further along than I knew about a few months ago. Cislunar tethers could provide 97% of the materials needed in GEO to provide fulltime electricity to the three out of four people on earth that do not have it yet. I think that is the "killer app" commercial space should go after. With beamed power from GEO, lightcraft and M2P2 will start to drop launch costs to everywhere. Solar power, electric cars, electric spacecraft, that's the future of a spacefaring nation. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01960097468697364515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8809438035746342262.post-74972364808133490742009-08-21T13:50:27.326-07:002009-08-21T13:50:27.326-07:00A lot more discussion on this article can be found...A lot more discussion on this article can be found at the Daily Kos:<br /><br />http://www.dailykos.com/user/newpapyrusMarcel F. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16245086958213100840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8809438035746342262.post-62415419672994569102009-08-21T13:39:10.663-07:002009-08-21T13:39:10.663-07:00The problem is the our previous president has put ...The problem is the our previous president has put NASA in a situation where they have to do everything at once:<br /><br />1. Continue the space shuttle ($3 billion of year)<br />2. Continue to support the space station ($1 to $2 billion a year)<br />3. Develop a new space shuttle<br />4. Develop a new heavy lift infrastructure to launch vehicles into lunar orbit<br />5. Develop a new lunar lander <br /><br />And do all of this on a budget half that of the Apollo program which only had to do one or two things. <br /><br />I'd be fore the Jupiter if they also offered a SSTO vehicle to launch the Orion without the SRBs to go along with the heavy lift SRB vehicle for beyond LEO payloads.Marcel F. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16245086958213100840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8809438035746342262.post-65314612745553293692009-08-21T13:07:38.561-07:002009-08-21T13:07:38.561-07:00I hate to say this but, I think the fix is in to c...I hate to say this but, I think the fix is in to cancel the Return to the Moon program. Side mount former shuttle booster is a good idea for now. Jupiter follow-on better. But under the current Administration and Congress - I don't have any high hopes of Americans ever leaving orbit again in my liftime (and I'm almost 50 years old now).Shanksowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06455835656613672100noreply@blogger.com